- This topic has 4 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
I would disagree quite a bit. Greek influence in Roman civilization can be found much earlier than Hadrian.
Hmm, apparently I need to rethink this. Perhaps there was a type of Greek revivalism going on under the Antonines?
Hmm, apparently I need to rethink this. Perhaps there was a type of Greek revivalism going on under the Antonines?
"Revivalism" presupposes that it all but disappeared at one point. Perhaps Hadrian was stronger than others in push of Greek ideals, but this does not mean that such ideals would have been unknown to Romans before that time.What may be true is that under Hadrian, an increased program of monumental structures were built that reflected Greek influence. We really know a lot about Rome based on physical evidence that has been left over from old, such as architecture and art. I think it's more difficult to know about what emperors did if their influence on Rome was of the less tangible type.
I think it's more difficult to know about what emperors did if their influence on Rome was of the less tangible type.
What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean the archeological evidence left behind? This leads to a question: since little was written about Hadrian yet much was written about, say, Augustus would you say we know more about Hadrian than Augustus because Hadrian left more physical evidence?One more question, so when did, if one can put a timeframe on it, did Greek and Roman culture fuse?
What I said would apply generally, not in every case. Augustus was such a significant person with many accomplishments that we know much about him and/or his reign.Perhaps I should amend my original statement to say that archaeological evidence left behind tells us about Rome during the reign of emperors, not necessarily emperors themselves. But we can still tell, for example, how a particular emperor related to the public by his creation of a lavish bath for public use, or for his creation of a palace overlooking the Circus Maximus, or his creation of monumental architecture in one of the overseas Roman territories. According to a video lecture I watched, the Roman perception of the Greeks first changed after the Battle of Syracuse (~212 B.C.) when Greek artifacts and stuff was brought to Rome.
What I said would apply generally, not in every case. Augustus was such a significant person with many accomplishments that we know much about him and/or his reign.
Yes I think this gets to the heart of why little is known about Hadrian. His greatness was diminished by the failure of Hadrian's Wall to tame the Britons, for example. They always found ways around it, by sea, bribery at the gates and so much damage that repairs and breeches were a constant concern. Rome was loathe to leave Brittania, perhaps this is why scribes were not directed to write more about Hadrian.
His greatness was diminished by the failure of Hadrian's Wall to tame the Britons, for example. They always found ways around it, by sea, bribery at the gates and so much damage that repairs and breeches were a constant concern.
Do you have information that the wall was a "failure"? I had not heard that before.
There is a British historian, whose name now escapes me but which I can provide for you in a day or two. I watched a lecture from the Library on Hadrian's Wall. In it this historian (apologise for not remembering his name) said that fires were constantly being set by native Britons, they also sailed to and from what is now Scotland to provide supplies and armaments. Certain Roman soldiers along the wall became known for their willingness to trade for access to pass through and parts of the wall itself along with barracks, stables and towers had been literally diassembled and moved to try to gain a better topographical advantage. When Hadrian built the wall, very good use was made of the natural lay of the land, it was built on mounds and where none exsisted, they were created. These mounds were destabalized from time to time. The causes ranged from the natural,ie. waterflow from underground springs and flooding, and also they were deliberately picked away at through organized, sort of terrorist operations, if you will. Once I find the historians name I'm sure some of this can be accessed online.
But the wall was not built to keep people out. It was built to control movement and it worked so I don't see how that can be considered a failure. He was very successful, perhaps even the most successful, at controlling the borders and organizing and consolidating the Roman army along the frontiers. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there was any direct attack on the Roman Empire during his reign. His biggest threats were the Jewish revolts, and he quickly crushed them. I don't agree there was little written about him. He didn't leave (or it hasn't been found) an autobiography like many emperors did, but there is much documentation concerning Hadrian's rule and travels throughout the whole Empire.
Yes Skiguy, the thinking among scholars is that the wall was a marker, the border of the Empire. Trade required tariff but why did the border end there? The Northern Tribes of Scotland were not conquered, they resented the wall and regularly caused trouble for the Empire. The wall was painted white to further assert Roman rule.
Of the primary sources treating the life of Hadrian there are but two significant extant works: the Vita Hadriani as found in the Historia Augusta (HA), and Dio Cassius; they are not wholly trusted.
http://www.roman-emperors.org/hillhadri.htm
The repairs made to Hadrian's wall at this time as a result of it being breached generally were so extensive that most Roman authors thereafter concluded that the wall itself had been Severus' rather than Hadrian's initiative. Septimius Severus died at York in 211 C.E. while planning yet another invasion. His failure to subdue Scotland after mobilising the resources of his empire to do so proved definitive and subsequent Roman incursions were temporary reactions to raids across the wall or scouting parties known as exploratores. Never again would Romans delude themselves that they could conquer Scotland.
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal-usa.com/invicta.htmSkiguy, the failure, if any, was in controlling the Scots, the major losses of men and need for constant repairs to the wall due to attacks from Scots. If you have a few minutes, the article at the link is worth a read.
The wall was painted white to further assert Roman rule.
Never heard of this.There aren't many primary sources from Roman scribes/historians concerning Hadrian, but there have been a real lot of archaeological findings since Gibbons and other secondary Hadrian biographers. The Vindolanda Tablets is just one of many. A fifty room building (imperial palace?) was discovered in 1992. There have also been recent (past few decades) findings in Athens, Adrianopolis, and Sagallasos that allow us to have a better understanding of Hadrian's administration.Many think of the wall as defensive. I think it was more for offensive purposes. Some sections of the wall are only 2 meters thick, the entrances were too narrow to move legions of troops through them effectively, and the forts and towers were behind the wall rather than in front of it...completely useless as a defensive barrier. It seems the forts along the wall were more used as a barracks than anything else. Cavalry and infantry were stationed at the wall forts not only to monitor passage, but also to be deployed to the north to prevent attacks on the wall itself. The wall may have been an "unofficial" border, but it was not meant to mark the limits of Rome's rule. There were lots of Roman outposts, religious shrines, and other evidence of Romanization north of the wall.
I have heard that it was painted white before also. I think it was proven by some archaologists doing chemical tests on parts of the wall that had been buried for hundreds of years. I will have to see if I can find a link. Maybe even to wikipedia 😀
It was chemical tests that proved the paint. What is the best explation for Rome having not conquered the Scots? I know the wall was built across the shortest distance from coast to coast. Did Rome incur heavy losses in defence of the wall?
I know the wall was built across the shortest distance from coast to coast.
You might be thinking of the shorter Antonine Wall.I do not know of any heavy losses in defending the wall (scout? phid?). The wall (Hadrian's) was attacked and damaged in the late second century and sections were rebuilt by Severus. From what I've read about it so far, the third century was relatively peaceful because of the buffer zone between the two walls.
